• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

200 plus oil

Evidence? ... or just opinion?

I will assume you are talking about economy part of my post.

Since world economic growth is dependent on cheap energy, then reduced cost would will give people more disposable income. It won't help all segments of the economy, but it will provide additional money to circulate.

I realize, this is just an opinion...and this economy may be much tougher recover from since it is more severe than recent cycles.

glenn
 
It certainly seems to be happening in the UK, plans to build a large offshore wind farm seem to be falling apart as various partners pull out, banks are unwilling to stump up the cash and political will for green energy dissipates. Oil price will be a factor in this, though maybe it is more a casualty of the general credit crunch:

That is why I believe this is a tough call ... the credit crunch may be the biggest damper on development of any kind, including alternate energy sources. I don't think there is a large consensus that believes we have abundant cheap energy in fossil fuels; abundant, perhaps ... but not abundant and cheap, which is why I doubt that we will totally abandon all avenues of research. The biggest keys are to making it profitable, affordable and easily usable. The good news is, there will always be a demand for more energy ... the bad news is it needs to be there when one throws the switch.

Low oil price will probably have a greater effect on possible development of Canadian tar sands and other oil reserves with a high extraction value. At $150 a barrel they made economic sense, at $50 a barrel they don't.

Perhaps it's better to see it as a good idea knowing no well is unlimited. And this just stared us in the face.
 
Actually it was more of the desire to abandon new research just because there is at present a dip in the price of oil. You seemed so certain of that.

Past experience from the 80s. All alternative energy projects shut down when oil prices dropped. Even drilling slowed to a very slow pace. If the price of oil stays low for a protracted period, it will stop companies from spending money as there would be no return. Tboone Pickens is having trouble financing his wind farm already. Look for oil sand expansion to slow in Canada.

It may not shut it down completely, but it will probably require subsidies or companies won't take the risk.

glenn
 
Tboone Pickens is having trouble financing his wind farm already.

Good riddance; the wind power seems like little more than a distraction to deflect criticism from his water caper for which he has sleazily acquired eminent domain(granting him the power to seize private land to make way for his water pipeline + transmission lines).

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm

It may not shut it down completely, but it will probably require subsidies or companies won't take the risk.

It already does.

From an interview with Pickens: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0

Question: "What happens if Congress doesn't extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind -- set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that's an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity."

Pickens: "Then you've got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy."

...

Question: "What about when the wind doesn't blow?"

Pickens:"That's the problem with wind generation. You've got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation."

This is from a guy who has eminent domain, access to close to the best wind resource available on the planet and no plan to provide the necessary storage to supply wind mostly without the gas and coal; and he's still hesitant on his abillity to go on without a subsidy? Well, at least he's honest about it.
 
Last edited:
Good riddance; the wind power seems like little more than a distraction to deflect criticism from his water caper for which he has sleazily acquired eminent domain(granting him the power to seize private land to make way for his water pipeline + transmission lines).

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm



It already does.

From an interview with Pickens: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0

Question: "What happens if Congress doesn't extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind -- set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that's an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity."

Pickens: "Then you've got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy."

...

Question: "What about when the wind doesn't blow?"

Pickens:"That's the problem with wind generation. You've got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation."

This is from a guy who has eminent domain and no plan to provide the necessary storage to supply wind mostly without the gas and coal and he's still hesitant on his abillity to go on without a subsidy? Well, at least he's honest about it.

Capacity factors for wind power are just 35% during the best of conditions...and go down to 7% or so during the summer when needed most. Still, it should be included in world energy mix.

glenn
 
Question: "What about when the wind doesn't blow?"

Pickens:"That's the problem with wind generation. You've got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation."

What of nuclear? It's damn near 2010 already.
 
Capacity factors for wind power are just 35% during the best of conditions...and go down to 7% or so during the summer when needed most. Still, it should be included in world energy mix.

Then what exactly are these alternate sources that Obama wants to invest billions of $$$$ into that will get us off of foreign oil? ... if not nuclear?

PS: Personally, I think it impossible to get totally off of imported oil within 200 years. Maybe never.
 
What of nuclear? It's damn near 2010 already.

If we're still talking about the US, the NRC is very slow and they have a lot of work on their table right now. Don't expect the utilities who have handed in applications for new nuclear build to even be allowed to put the first shovel into the ground until ~4 years after their application.

Capacity factors for wind power are just 35% during the best of conditions...and go down to 7% or so during the summer when needed most. Still, it should be included in world energy mix.

Sure, wind power is cheap if you don't care about intermittency(irrigation? desal?) and happen to live somewhere windy.
 
Last edited:
Then what exactly are these alternate sources that Obama wants to invest billions of $$$$ into that will get us off of foreign oil? ... if not nuclear?

I can't speak for Obama but there's tonnes of ways to reduce oil consumption that do not necessarily involve nuclear power; you'd have to carefully sift through this mess to determine what might be cost-effective.

Solar space heating/hot water is quite affordable(no expensive silicon, just an array of evacuated glass tubes containing blackened/anodized inner tubes through which water can flow) and it can directly displace natural gas and oil.

Insulation and counter-current heat exchangers can directly reduce the amount of energy(oil, gas or otherwise) used in HVAC(if a home is made airtight and all ventilation goes through a counter-current heat exchanger you can recover over 90% of the energy loss from ventilation).

Electrified rail can directly replace oil used in diesel locomotives. Trains can directly replace trucks for transporting goods. Smaller cars can directly replace most big cars(check the price of SUVs; it's already happening on account of the recent high in oil price and price volatility/supply concerns. One way to ensure that it continues might be to put a price floor on oil and buy every barrel of oil below that, putting it into expanding the strategic reserve or puting an onerous tax on oil-based fuels like Europe).

To the extent that domestic natural gas production can be expanded or natural gas can be saved from other uses natural gas or natural gas derivatives(e.g. dimethylether, an excellent low-particulate, high efficiency diesel replacement. See Gas To Liquids, GTL) can be used for motor vehicles.

Biogas from anaerobic fermentation of crop wastes and manure can be used to expand the natural gas supply a little bit without puting much pressure on soil carbon(might not be worth transporting this gas off of the farm if it's not connected to a natural gas grid, but you can displace other fossil fuels used for drying corn, use it as an automotive fuel for farm equipment or put it through a small gas turbine and generate electricity so you don't have to pay the higher price of electricity during peak times or export electricity to the grid produce ammonia/urea locally if haber-bosch can be cost effectively scaled down etc.).

You can use black liquor from the paper industry to produce small amounts of DME or other valuable liquid fuels through gasification.

You can try to develop GM-plants that are specifically made more vulnerable to attack(e.g. produce enzymes required to break themselves down) such that the cellulose can be separated from lignin and turned into glucose for yeast or bacteria; you can try to develop higher yield yeast or bacteria that produce butanol instead of ethanol(butanol naturally floats to the surface at some concentration, requiring no distillation; less corrosive than ethanol. 15% gasoline + 85% butanol can be used in unmodified gasoline engines).

You can gamble some money on developing cheaper/better battery and high energy density ultra-capacitor technology(even if you're just going to use it with an ICE in a hybrid, the fact that you can run an engine/micro-turbine at it's peak efficiency with just enough power to coast at high-way speeds and use the battery to provide the oomphh for fast acceleration instead of having a hugely oversized ICE saves you a lot of gas; as does having ultra capacitors can easily recover most of breaking energy).

You can use a SOFC to recover energy and clean up VOCs(e.g. paint fumes at an auto-factory that you may not be allowed to just emit to the atmosphere).

You can try to develop a "smart-grid"(which would try to turn the electrical grid into more of a fully connected graph that can shuffle electricity from anywhere to anywhere to better soak up intermitent generation) with "smart appliances"(such as a freezer with embedded eutectic or phase change material that can defer electricity consumption to cheaper off-peak electricity and provide the electrical companies with the abillity to switch off your freezer or air conditioning for a few hours(at their expense) to deal with an emergency drop in generation until replacement sources come online).

You can gamble some money on trying to develop metallic carbon nanotube quantum-wires into a potentially cheaper replacement for aluminium and copper in electrical motors, in HVDC distribution systems(quantum wire has higher conductance along the wire and much lower conductance across it, absurd tensile strength and light weight); the natural first customer on the road to commercialisation is anything to do with space, because performance and weigth is much more important than cost to these people.

You can gamble some money on unlikely alternative approaches to fusion(a few million here and there to see if there's anything to it. E.g. focus fusion and polywell IEC).

You can encourage people to eat less meat or shift consumption towards chicken(much more efficient at converting grains into meat than cattle, sheep or pigs).

You can put a fuel consumption rating on food to encourage people to pick stuff produced closer to home(not just miles, because trucks are far more efficient than aircraft, trains and inland barges far more efficient than trucks, huge container ships far more efficient than trains). You can discourage fuel and water intense forms of low density organic agriculture. You can encourage the development of GM crops, either through industry or entirely patent and royalty free varieties produced entirely with public funding.

There's just an endless list of stuff to pick from(much of which won't make much sense if you examine it closely, I'm sure).
 
That's a good list ... have any been shown to be cost effective? For example, I seriously doubt we'll ever get our major railways to be electric powered.
 
I seriously doubt we'll ever get our major railways to be electric powered.
Why? Is traffic too light to justify the initial cost?
If so then higher oil prices - and I'm sure we'll see those again - could eventually make change that. Or, I guess, kill off the railways altogether.
 
That's a good list ...

Thanks, but it's not even a tiny fraction of the number of different ideas that are floating about out there.

have any been shown to be cost effective?

Solar hot water can be very cost-effective in reliably sunny locations with no need for freeze-protection.

I'm not sure if anaerobic digestion is cost-effective; but it's supplying ~1.4 TWh/year(2006) of gas in Sweden(mostly from municipal sewage treatment plants and land fills); that's an equivalent amount of energy to 4.6 gallons of petrol per capita. One study found that it has a potential to produce 7 TWh/year without dedicated use of farmland and 14 TWh per year with 10% of farmland.

DME from black liquor is similarly quite small in the big scheme of things. We happen to have a large forest industry and so does Finland; if cost-effective it could supply up to 30% of our auto-motive fuel and 50% of the finns'. Chemrec is running a development facillity in Piteå(northern Sweden), it appears to have been quite successful and last I heard they're in talks with some american company about setting up a larger facillity in (Michigan?). Technology wise it has significant overlap with Coal-To-Liquids(CTL) and Biomass-To-Liquids(CTL) through gasification, in which the fuel is gasified by being subjected to a little bit of oxygen and a lot of steam, to produce hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide; the H:CO ratio is adjusted with the water-gas shift reaction and typically fisher-tropsch is used to produce some mixture of alkanes(composition being determined by H2:CO ratio). Producing DME is potentially cheaper to produce than Fischer-Tropchs diesel as well as being a much cleaner fuel(NOx and particulate wise) than long-chain alkanes.

There are investors and companies betting their own money on trying to develop many of these approaches but I haven't the faintest which ones might turn out to be cost-effective.

For example, I seriously doubt we'll ever get our major railways to be electric powered.

Electric rail is very widespread here in Europe. The operating cost is much lower than diesel-powered trains but the capital cost is much higher; it's not cost-effective unless you're sending enough goods or people to justify the added installation cost(I'm not sure if that means you need a high population density to support the required level of goods/people).
 
Last edited:
Electric rail is very widespread here in Europe. The operating cost is much lower than diesel-powered trains but the capital cost is much higher; it's not cost-effective unless you're sending enough goods or people to justify the added installation cost(I'm not sure if that means you need a high population density to support the required level of goods/people).

That's why I don't think it'll ever get off the ground around here. There are too many areas in which the population density is too low ... freight trains are the greatest in number through those areas. Along the coasts, perhaps; but never mainstream. And it won't be lower in cost vs. Diesel unless we increase fuel taxes ... and increased taxes right now is one thing no one needs.
 
Electrified rail can directly replace oil used in diesel locomotives.
And what would be the point of that? Diesel/electric locomotives are about the most efficient form of transportation we have to move freight. How could converting all those tracks to electric possibly be worth the expense?
 
And what would be the point of that?

Because lowering operating costs by shifting from expensive diesel to cheap coal and uranium could make it affordable to shift a lot of ton-miles of freight from trucks to rail?

Supposedly(I can find many sources but not a reputable one) the reason/excuse the US railroad companies give for not persuing electrification is that a property tax is levied on electrified rail but not diesel.
 
Last edited:
Diesel/electric locomotives are about the most efficient form of transportation we have to move freight.

That's what I'm thinking too. Those engines are basically miniature power plants in and of themselves ... with the conversion being done directly where the work is being done. If coal is converted into fuel (liquefaction) then I doubt you can beat the current set-up.
 
Because lowering operating costs by shifting from expensive diesel to cheap coal and uranium could make it affordable to shift a lot of ton-miles of freight from trucks to rail?

Didn't you just argue against nuclear reactors, in their not getting on-line until a good number of years?
 
Last edited:
Didn't you just argue against nuclear reactors...

No. As much as I like fission there are realistically many ways to reduce oil consumption.

...in their not getting on-line until a number of years?

How does that prevent the US's 104 currently operating nuclear reactors from cranking out cheap baseload electricity to the tune of one fifth of the US's electric supply?
 
Last edited:
Because lowering operating costs by shifting from expensive diesel to cheap coal and uranium could make it affordable to shift a lot of ton-miles of freight from trucks to rail?
Now all you have to do to show this is add up and show the expense involved in electrifying the freight lines in the US, the cost of the new locomotives which will be required to run on them, the cost of the electricity, and compare that to to the cost of simply continuing on with diesel/electric locomotives.

Maybe you'll see a savings in 100 years or so, if you completely disregard the time value of money...

Supposedly(I can find many sources but not a reputable one) the reason/excuse the US railroad companies give for not persuing electrification is that a property tax is levied on electrified rail but not diesel.
Because electrifying the rails will require infrastructure to public lands, additional easements, etc.

And how much freight in Europe is actually moved by electric rail lines? I note the most powerful locomotive in Europe, the ER 20 CF, is diesel/electric, same design used here in the US. I also note that Corus locomotives are also diesel/electric.

Any evidence at all that pure electric locomotives are used in anything but light rail?
 

Back
Top Bottom